Damien Symonds

Great. Do you need help with new numbers for the shirt?

Remember that Andrew Rodney's credibility is extremely limited, since he preaches wide gamut editing. http://www.damiensymonds.net/2014/06/the-wide-gamut-myth.html

I definitely agree with this points about the shortcomings of CMYK. But to suggest that LAB is the solution is nonsense. If you must use numbers for skintones, just use the RGB ones you already have. http://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/02/editing-skintones-in-photoshop-elements.html I urge you to avoid using numbers altogether. It's photography, not mathematics. LOOK at the photo. If you need help looking at a photo to see what the skin needs, feel free to post it here so I can help you. And I almost guarantee I'll help you fix it with the use of Photo Filters. A bit more reading: http://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/02/skintones-why-so-hasty.html http://www.damiensymonds.net/2015/07/creamy-silky-perfect-angelic-skin.html http://www.damiensymonds.net/2013/02/using-photo-filter-layer-to-fix-casts.htm

The key to blurring is the cloning first. http://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/06/blurring-background-false-dof.html

Hi Glynda, can you elaborate on the question? What do you need help with, exactly? Where are you getting stuck?

It sounds like you're running an action, is that correct? Rather than running it directly?

Well, the first step is to take a suitable photo of a whole bunch of pink and white balloons. Have you done so? But gosh, even if you take a perfectly-assembled, perfectly-lit, perfectly-angled photo of the balloons, the translucent bits of her skirt are going to be demonically hard to mask.

Sorry to hear there was no easy solution

PLEASE don't do any more editing until you've finished the class.

No, wait, scratch those numbers. Post again once you've fixed the white balance; the numbers will need to be different.

I'll be offline for a while, I'm afraid. Try a Channel Mixer layer: Red 0, +85, 0 Green 0, +100, 0 Blue 0, +130, 0 Fiddle with those values and see if you can get close. If it's not good enough, I'll be back to check this thread later.

Hi Sarah, may I also see the whole photo for reference?

Levels, yes. If you'd taken Raw you wouldn't have made this tyro mistake.

I have no record of you in the raw class? AND resizing properly for print. This is crucial.

PLEASE change your life: http://www.damiensymonds.net/training.html

That stops TODAY. Have some pride in your prints. Now that we're looking at the 100% crops, can you see the problem? http://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/07/raw-noise-removal.html

Now, may I see a 100% crop from one of the "bad" jpeg print files? And maybe one from a good one too, for comparison.

Yeah, this is all wrong. You can't just upload uncropped, unresized, unsharpened files, and expect them to print properly. As I said earlier, your 8x10 print jpegs should be (usually) between 500KB and 2MB. http://www.damiensymonds.net/2011/09/cropping-tutorial.html http://www.damiensymonds.net/trainingsharp.html

I don't understand the problem? Click on the jpeg files that you uploaded, then show me those same properties screenshots. Showing the file size, the dimensions, and so on.

Then why are you showing me PSD details? They're irrelevant.

You're not uploading PSD files to ROES, are you????????????????

Can you clarify this? Did you mean 200KB? 8x10 print files should be (usually) somewhere between 500KB and 2MB.

Have you actually printed them? Or is this just what you're seeing in the ROES preview?

Did you do this? http://www.damiensymonds.net/art_tscs000.html

Which direction?